YOU ARE VIEWING ONE ITEM FROM THE AICRIER FEED

ECCV author questions 1-to-4 rebuttal swing

AICrier tracks AI developer news across Product Hunt, GitHub, Hacker News, YouTube, X, arXiv, and more. This page keeps the article you opened front and center while giving you a path into the live feed.

// WHAT AICRIER DOES

7+

TRACKED FEEDS

24/7

SCRAPED FEED

Short summaries, external links, screenshots, relevance scoring, tags, and featured picks for AI builders.

ECCV author questions 1-to-4 rebuttal swing
OPEN LINK ↗
// 4h agoRESEARCH PAPER

ECCV author questions 1-to-4 rebuttal swing

Reddit post from r/MachineLearning where an author describes receiving mixed ECCV reviews and worries that one reviewer gave a 1 while suggesting more experiments could change the score. The discussion is really about rebuttal strategy, reviewer flexibility, and whether it is worth pushing hard for a rating change during the response period.

// ANALYSIS

Hot take: a big score swing is possible, but it is not something to assume or optimize your sanity around.

  • Reviewers can and do revise scores after rebuttal if you directly address the main technical concern.
  • A note like “I could change my assessment” usually means the reviewer is open to persuasion, not that they are committing to a jump from reject to accept.
  • The practical goal is to remove the specific objection that drove the 1, not to chase an exact target score.
  • This kind of thread is common in conference-review cycles: authors feel the pressure, but the outcome depends on whether the rebuttal materially changes the reviewer’s confidence.
// TAGS
eccvllmresearchevaluation

DISCOVERED

4h ago

2026-05-08

PUBLISHED

7h ago

2026-05-08

RELEVANCE

6/ 10

AUTHOR

Alternative_Art2984